Kiran Raj

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee of the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC), seeking promotion despite the pendency of criminal proceedings against him. The court ruled that the NHPC's internal promotion rules explicitly bar further advancement for employees facing ongoing criminal charges unless they are fully exonerated. The petitioner had sought promotion to the posts of Manager (Electrical), Senior Manager (Electrical), and Deputy General Manager (Electrical) on the ground that his juniors had already been promoted to those positions.

The petitioner, Rajesh Singh, filed a writ petition seeking promotion to managerial positions within NHPC, contending that he had been unfairly denied advancement despite meeting the eligibility criteria. He argued that the only reason for his stagnation was the pendency of a criminal case against him, which had remained unresolved for over ten years. The petitioner asserted that the prolonged nature of the criminal proceedings should not prevent him from being considered for promotion.

The petitioner also relied on an office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, dated September 14, 1992. He contended that this memorandum permitted the consideration of government employees for promotion if their criminal proceedings remained unresolved for more than two years. The petitioner maintained that similar principles should apply to NHPC employees and that denying him promotion based on the prolonged pendency of the case was unfair.

The NHPC, however, opposed the petition, arguing that the organization operates under its own independent rules and regulations, which govern the promotion policy of its employees. The respondents submitted that while the petitioner had been granted an ad hoc promotion from Assistant Manager (Electrical) to Deputy Manager (Electrical) in 2020, further promotion was not permissible under NHPC’s internal rules. They cited Clause 18 of the NHPC promotion policy, which states that an employee facing criminal proceedings is not eligible for further promotion, either regular or ad hoc, unless they are completely exonerated of all charges.

Justice Puneet Gupta examined the legal framework governing NHPC promotions and found that the petitioner’s case was explicitly covered by NHPC’s internal rules. The court stated that "the petitioner has been accorded one promotion vide order dated 21.08.2020 to the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical) during the pendency of the writ petition w.e.f. 01.04.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is as such partially addressed by the respondents during the pendency of the writ petition."

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on the 1992 office memorandum, the court held that "the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid office memorandum dated 14.09.1992 shall apply to the Corporation cannot be sustained." It further stated that "the Corporation being an independent entity has every power to frame its Rules and Regulations for its working. The office memorandum referred to by the petitioner cannot override the Policy making decision of the respondent-Corporation which is an independent identity."

The court also examined NHPC’s promotion policy and found that Clause 18.7 and Clause 18.8 explicitly barred further promotions for executives facing pending criminal charges. The judgment recorded that "as per Rule 18.7 and 18.8, the executive can be granted only one promotion and is not to be considered for any subsequent promotion regular or adhoc though he has completed the qualifying service with reference to the date of his adhoc promotion. He is not to be promoted unless he is completely exonerated of the charges which are laid against him."

The court further noted that "Rule 18.4 and Rule 18.5 also refer to the consequences where the executive is acquitted in the criminal prosecution on the merits or on technical grounds." Based on these provisions, the court held that NHPC's policy was clear in restricting further promotions for employees facing unresolved criminal proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that NHPC’s internal rules lawfully prevented the petitioner from being considered for further promotion while his criminal case remained pending. The judgment stated that "the Rules applicable on the subject do not entitle the petitioner for the relief as sought for by him in the writ petition."

The court also pointed out that the petitioner had not challenged the validity of the NHPC rules that barred his promotion. It noted that "the petitioner has not challenged the relevant Rules which come in the way of the petitioner for consideration of further promotion. In the absence of challenge to the Rules by the petitioner in the writ petition qua the claim for promotion, the Court is not to obliterate the Rules of promotion which may be to the detriment of the petitioner."

However, the court observed that NHPC retained the discretion to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion if it wished to do so, despite the dismissal of the petition. It stated that "the respondents are at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for further promotion if they intend to do so despite dismissal of the present writ petition."

Case Title: Rajesh Singh v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: WP (C) No. 3915/2019
Bench: Justice Puneet Gupta

[Read/Download order]